Page 2922 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Stanhope: How patronising is that?
MR SMYTH: She put this patronising amendment up to support the Labor Party. That is what is patronising.
It was not raised. It was mentioned, it was listed, it was indexed. That is what was done in the report. And then of course we have got the contradiction. Ms Le Couteur says that the estimates committee report raised the deferral of the urban forest renewal program as a key issue but then calls on the government to restore appropriate funding to this key issue next year: “Don’t do it this year; it is not that key. Do it next year. Oh, and by the way, don’t tell me where the money is coming from. We will keep that secret. That is just for next year.”
This is putting it off. This is kowtowing to the government. This is not having the courage of your convictions. This is committing third-party insurance fraud. This is giving in to the government. And that is a shame because I expected more. Over the year and a half that you have been here, we have come to expect more from you, Ms Le Couteur.
Ms Le Couteur says, “Oh, it must be a political issue,” and the Chief Minister says: “Come on, let us face it: this is aimed at me.” How conceited! Everything is all about Jon the great tree killer. It is all about Jon. This morning the roadside random breath testing debate was not about road safety; it was about Jon and Jon’s process and Jon’s timetable that exposed the people of the ACT for five years. We could have had this back in 2005, but, no, we had to wait five years, because it is all about Jon.
Now we want to restore this money. The government always says, “Where is the money coming from?” Well, we have given them the source. We said, “Take some of the $26 million that you are putting into the arboretum this year and put it back into something we consider to be more important—and, what is more, that the people consider to be more important.” Where they live, their street, their suburb, their park, their reserve, their bush capital is what they are concerned about and that is what they would like to see.
The Greens have squibbed it. They do not want to do it this year. They do not want to tell us where the money is coming from. They are not willing to make a decision. They have put no case as to why not this year. They have just put forward another simplistic amendment. The motion as put forward is accurate and the motion put forward should be voted upon. The motion says:
That this Assembly:
(1) notes:
(a) the importance of street trees to the residents of Canberra;
I do not think you can disagree with that. Indeed, Ms Le Couteur left it in in recognition of that importance:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video